Slashdot Mirror
META Predicts Linux Software From Microsoft in 2004
trandles writes "According to this story at NYTimes (FRYYY), META Group is reporting that Microsoft will begin selling Linux software in 2004. It also goes on to report that a META Group study comes to the same conclusion as the earlier (MS-funded) IDC study that Linux has a higher TCO than MS solutions for some applications." Remember, this is speculation on the part of META, and has to do with back-end software, not Office. (But if Microsoft wanted to, they could become the world's biggest producer of Linux software.)
Hey, even if they wanted to put out Office for Linux, I say GREAT! If they started puting out apps for linux, maybe other companies will follow suit, and then maybe we can stop being dependandt on Microsoft for their OS.
But remember there is a difference between selling
1. Closed source, commercial Linux software
2. Open Sourced/GPLed Linux software.
Hah, they'll probably GPL notepad.
"But if Microsoft wanted to, they could become the world's biggest producer of Linux software."
If Microsoft wanted to, they could become the world's biggest producer of fishing lures. Or coffee warmers. Or pencil lead. They have the money to be the largest producer of anything.
MS is currently trying to become the world's biggest producer of game consoles (or at least a serious competitor), and it doesn't seem to be working very well from what I've heard.
There are two kinds of sysadmins: paranoids and losers. I'm both kinds.
I went to pick up some RAM last night, and saw someone with a Microstar PC, running Windows XP Home, it had StarOffice plastered all over the box.
Microsoft are slowly loosing there Office Monopoly, once that starts to dwindle then there OS monopoly is up for grabs.
Async IO and N:P threading in the 2.6 kernel will help along the way.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
only if Linus lets them use the Linux name ;)
Because the only way Microsoft will start selling software for Linux is over Bill Gates' cold, dead body.
And he told you this personally, did he?
MS write and have written software for a number of platforms. Office for Mac, MSIE for Solaris, CLR for FreeBSD to name but a few. Bill and Microsoft do what they do because they believe it will generate the most value for their shareholders - if the competitive landscape changes, so will they. Look how fast they changed their Internet strategy, for example.
If you are running a Windows shop and put people with only MCSE training to work on UNIX/Linux machines, they won't know what to do, they won't even know how to find out what to do, and they will hate it. Your systems will run miserably and your TCO will be high.
What does that mean? Your Linux TCO depends on how your run your shop. If you do things right, the achievable TCO is better for Linux than for Windows.
It's very logical for Microsoft to make Linux software at some point in time.
They're still in the phase where they're fighting tooth and nail to swallow up the server market (as well as the console game, PDA, cell phone, and ISP markets:)
Only when Linux makes more serious inroads into the server market will they commit to a product for Linux. For now, the more profitable strategy is the one they're currently pursuing.
Microsoft's dilemna, though, will be that various free and open source software will fill in the holes of providing MS services on UNIX. SAMBA and Mono, for example. If they released it now, they could own .NET on UNIX, but it would unfavorably leverage against their other strategy of having Windows take over more of the server OS market. The latter strategy puts them more in the drivers seat as far as coming out with new products, calling the shots for upgrade cycles, etc. and is therefore preferable to them at this point in time.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I'm not so sure about that. In the long term they are threatened by the emergence of new competition. It is in their best interest to prevent that emergence, so I think in any given decision control is viewed as a higher priority than profit.
Whether the ultimate goal is profit is, I think, immaterial when the result is that every decision is made to favor control above all else.
Nope, no sig
Honeslty, I think .NET is very akin to Java (not just the language similarites, but the bytecode/CLR, VM, libraries, etc.). In fact, I think Microsoft will give up their OS monopoly that they've been beaten up about. Just before they giove it up, though, they'll finsih porting everything to .NET amd then sue any platform running .NEt without a license. Trading one monopoly for another.
91degrees wrote:
.Net will let it run where ever .Net is ported to. A Microsoft port exists for OS X. And Microsoft has duped a bunch of open source developers into porting it to Linux, saving Microsoft the development costs.
> We're safe for now.
For a very short now. Make good use of it by grabbing every bit of Microsoft's marketshare that you can.
> MS makes all their profit on Word and Windows.
> This would mean that they can only make a profit
> on the Word processor since they're giving away
> the GUI and OS, thus halving their profits.
No, they will be basically giving both Office and OS away, as free as AOL disks. Use of the software will be charged for, again and again, and the software will stop working when you stop paying.
At that point, it won't matter what the software is running on.
The name of the game is "Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish".
And if you think Microsoft has played that game like hardball, you haven't seen anything yet.
"At this moment, it has control of systems all over the world.
And...we can't do a damn thing to stop it."
Miyasaka, "Godzilla 2000 Millennium" (Japanese version)
Homage to Fairy Mothra, who first appeared on this date in 1994.
Having worked with .NET a bit over the past year, and having had experience doing C++ and VB over the past 6 years or so...
.NET is to Windows developers as it gives them the flexibility and functionality of C++ with the ease of rapid development of VB. It's all about efficiency.
.NET gives Microsoft is nothing but gravy on top of that. Such as ease of moving from 32-bit to 64-bit Intel platform.
The main advantage of
Efficiency of development is the primary goal, anything else that
Of course the equivalent Linux strategy is offering a replacement for X, including a Windows-like desktop and support for the Windows API. I'll bet they are already experimenting with this.
I have often heard from my friends at MS that they like their engineers to have a strong UNIX/LINUX background. As laughable as that may seem given the immaturity of MS products, this seems to make sense if MS is looking to get into the Linux market.
For instance, if MS were to release Office for Linux I wouldn't be booting into Windows as often as I do (I have a dual-boot setup). I also think that by releasing Office they would succeed in luring in a whole new demographic into trusting MS that had previously only bashed them. The result would be Linux people using MS and Linux gaining respect in the eyes of non-techies. How is this good for MS? All MS would have to do is release MSLinux and everyone would migrate to it in a flash. If anything I think MS's OS business would grow along with their apps.
I hate to admit it but when it comes to usability (GUI, ease of software installation, system navigation) MS is tops. A lot of you are probably grimacing at that last statement but after having seen my grandmother (age: 70+) competently surf the net, write emails, and install software only after a day or two of help from my 10 year old cousin I'm a believer. If MS comes out with Linux tomorrow I know I wouldn't have a dual boot anymore....
Firstly, there is no reason why Microsoft couldn't sell their own version of Linux for the server
.NET is part of it, they are trying to seduce companies into using whatever developement framework they want, as long as it's theirs.
.NET and the will hedge te best by forcing everyone (as in sufficient critical mass x 3) to have to interface to .NET (F) code whether they like it not.
Their own version of what? They couldn't even touch GPLd code with a 10 feet pole. They can't buy all copyright holders.
They can only plant the seeds that will mutate Linux into one of their allies, and yes, this will be a very unhappy day for many folks.
Java is the only thing standing in the way, but as we all know, it's easier to develop for
unfinished: (adj.)